GH CAN Leadership / GH Sub-COC Meeting 5/16/18

Greater Hartford Coordinated Access Network

Leadership Committee Agenda

Wednesday, May 16^th, 2018

In Attendance:

Sonia Brown – CRT

Crane Cesario – DMHAS

Sarah DiMaio – Salvation Army Marshall House

Fred Faulkner – The Open Hearth

Rosemary Flowers – My Sisters’ Place

Louis Gilbert – ImmaCare

Mollie Greenwood – Journey Home

John Lawlor – The Connection

Iris Ruiz – Interval House

Zoe Schwartz – CRT

Barbara Shaw – Hands On Hartford

Jen Greer – CHR

Rebekah Lyas – ImmaCare

Steve MacHattie – Mercy Housing

Letticia Brown-Gambino – Chrysalis Center

Tamara Womack – My Sisters’ Place

CT BOS COC Items

1.      Renewal Evaluation Standards – Crane Cesario

a.      The local renewal evaluation standards for CT BOS are higher than HUD’s standards, and as a result we are consistently a high-scoring continuum in the federal competition.  We have an ongoing work group focusing on Rapid ReHousing.  Some issues are related to folks getting income, but losing food stamps, and the negative impact that can have on the scoring of a Rapid ReHousing program.

b.      We no longer have non-DV TLPs that aren’t HUD funded.  DV TLPs are holding onto folks longer. 

c.      We are hoping to get these settled now, so that we have a few months to know what’s happening. 

d.      Consumer surveys, Crane has asked that we get evaluations 2 months in advance.  The numbers aren’t enough to warrant both. 

e.      When we’re looking at renewing this year, the idea is to have a combined grant that has planning capacity, CAN capacity, and maybe some services for legacy shelter plus care services or other SSO, with an emphasis on employment.

f.       Sonia had a question about what is going on with scoring for folks who are coming off the BNL. 

                                                    i.     HUD should only be looking at new entrants to the grant.  We had to push back and say that programs have been operating before the By-Name List started.  This impacts folks coming from DV shelters, and folks coming from the VA system.  Chrysalis had to explain where they came from as part of their renewal process.

                                                   ii.     We also saw some unintended consequences to demonstrate that bridging clients came into the PSH programs, because it wasn’t always clear that they were coming through the approved CAN process, because they were coming directly from homelessness.    

GH CAN Leadership Items

2.      EFSP Funding: Sheltering Families – Mollie Greenwood, Sarah DiMaio

a.      For the past few years, Journey Home has applied for hotel funding through the EFSP opportunity through the United Way to fund hotel placement for families during the Cold Weather Season to ensure we have enough space to immediately accommodate families.  This has posed problems in the past because there’s an incentive to seek emergency shelter (that of a free, non-shared hotel room for the family).  On the flip side, there were also challenges this year ensuring that there was adequate food available to families staying in shelters, because it was not always possible for them to go to the local shelters for meals.   At the last Cold Weather planning meeting, Kara Capobianco of the CT Department of Housing suggested shelters all going after this funding differently, and using it to support staffing and other needs to let folks stay in living rooms and lobbies. 

b.      The Department Of Housing has advised that if there’s a family saying they’re unsheltered, our shelters need to be able to offer immediate shelter.  This isn’t necessarily beds, Salvation Army is offering lobby space, living room space, extra mattresses.  Salvation Army has been the only shelter taking folks into overflow spaces on a consistent basis, and needs additional support from the other shelters in the community.

                                                    i.     At the Cold Weather meeting, Kara had suggested utilizing this extra funding to support this process.  Maybe shelters could split taking folks in a few days a week.  It would also be sending a message that this is the only thing that we have.  It would be logistically challenging, and we don't yet have a solid plan in place.

c.      The other option besides that is using ESFP money to hotel families seeking immediate shelter would be to hotel families who are already in shelter but have a lease date approaching.  Then we could place them into hotels, that would free up bed space for folks reporting they were unsheltered.  We tried this last week with a family from East Hartford, and it went smoothly, but did take a while to get organized. 

                                                    i.     Sarah will ask for a guideline of when we utilize hotels or overflow capacity from CT Department of Housing so that there are clearer expectations in place.  Diversion is offering to people who say they will be unsheltered.  Even though they’re only being offered a lobby, they’re gaining access to the shelter.  We need to find out exactly what DOH is expecting, and what their guideline is.  We’ve been erring on the side of caution since Cold Weather ended. 

1.      The households that have been verified have been verified by DCF calling the Diversion Center have been the bulk of the immediate referrals to shelter/lobby space from Diversion.  There was also a pregnant female who was immediately referred who looked very disheveled, and Diversion Center staff believed her to be unsheltered.  

2.      Kelly Gonzalez of Journey Home has been doing some outreach, and has had a very hard time verifying folks.  Many folks who are reporting that they will be unsheltered that night have been impossible to locate, leading us to believe they figured something out, at least temporarily.

d.      Letticia asked how large the families are who are in the overflow.  Sarah said the largest has been 5 total.  Letticia said there could be space at the YWCA that could turn into overflow spaces for families.  YWCA could take in pregnant women, or single parents with one child, they have a maximum of two beds that could be available. 

e.      Sonia asked whether we’d had these conversations at the Emergency Shelter Learning Collaborative meetings.  At this point, we haven’t.  We can bring up that this is the place we should bring it, to see if we’re doing the right housing-first/low barrier thing.  We need a family shelter group discussion. 

                                                    i.     Sarah talked to Kara yesterday, because we very much want additional DOH guidance.  Sarah would like something in writing.   The other shelters haven’t been getting those calls from Diversion.  Crane offered to work on that with Sarah. 

f.       It’s important to bring this up here, but we need probably an email chain of folks who start applying for it.  Mollie will send a targeted email out to all shelter providers to identify need and interest. 

3.      Staffing and Capacity for Rapid ReHousing Programs – Mollie Greenwood

a.      CHR is able to start taking new referrals using funding from another program the operate in a different CAN- CT BOS has approved accessing these funds to assist in Greater Hartford, and it can only be used for a short period of assistance.  CHR should have capacity relatively soon.  There will be some limited openings over the next few weeks. 

b.      Shelters need to know that RRH isn’t moving forward as robustly. 

c.      Sonia wanted to bring up a specific situation.  CRT had gotten approval to bridge a RRH participant to a PSH program.  It’s not clear where communication fell through.  Somehow an individual who got bridged from HPASS to PSH with Chrysalis, the housing program placed her into a whole other unit.  The thing that was more concerning to Sonia.  A third party letter was submitted to Chrysalis that indicated that she was unsheltered.  House of Bread has not been a very active.  HPASS paid an additional month of rent. 

                                                    i.     Journey Home, CRT, and Chrysalis should sit down and debrief and figure out where this happened to prevent this.  Crane’s understanding was this person had been through many discussions, got approved for bridging.  We didn’t hear in the meantime that any of this was happening.  Chrysalis assumed it was a new start, CRT believed they were bridging.  There was this silence in the middle.  We definitely need to get this organized.  Mollie need to set this up. 

                                                   ii.     Crane suggested her practice of obtaining 3^rd party documentation only after it has been approved by Journey Home staff.  Mollie and Lisa, please set this up. 

4.      Final ESG Funding Allocations – Lionel Rigler

a.      It has gone out to public comment, and can be viewed online.

5.      Households in Jeopardy of Losing Housing – Mollie Greenwood, Crane Cesario

a.      Communication to Housing Matching Committee

                                                    i.     At recent housing matching meetings, we've been finding that sometimes households are returning to shelter, and the housing programs did not notify the CAN matching committee that folks were in jeopardy of losing housing.

                                                   ii.     In some instances, folks have not actually lost a certificate or lost their unit, but may have received a NTQ and returned to the shelter.

                                                  iii.     A notice to quit doesn’t worry Crane as much.  You can still intervene when folks have a notice to quit.  Landlords are continuing to take funds from the program which gives programs the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of the client.

                                                  iv.     Sarah said that with Rapid, it could be a quick assistance where folks say they’re fine, and you stabilize them, but if four months later, RRH programs won’t know about a negative exit from housing into homelessness until they hit the shelter again. 

                                                   v.     It would be good to get a sense of what we’re seeing across the board from different housing programs.  

                                                  vi.     We had someone at Mary Seymour Place, he got in an altercation with someone, decided he couldn’t stay there.  He left and walked out on the unit.  But he became homeless in the gap.  In this instance his unit was not in immediate jeopardy, but because he was not engaging with services we found out that he left the unit from the shelter providers.

                                                vii.     Sarah asked Tony Mack to come to a home meeting with a client, because.

1.      We need to go to outreach to confirm when folks are becoming homeless again and returning to homelessness. 

                                               viii.     Sonia thinks about this when she’s thinking about outcomes.  How long after folks leave their program do they truly maintain their housing?  Who follows them when they exit?  How do you prove that?  We follow up with folks who are en route to transitioning to a higher housing intervention.  But those folks who are independently maintaining, how do we truly know if they’re successful after that many months? 

                                                  ix.     Letticia said that most RRH programs used to do a 6 month and a 9 month follow up.  The RRH program in Plainville, they do a 6 and 9 month follow up to check in with them on a monthly basis. 

1.      The issue with COC case management is discharging them.  If you’re discharging them but continuing to offer case management, your utilization looks low.  Larger organizations have some additional capacity for this, but in a small program in a smaller agency there isn't often the ability to stretch other resources in this way.  

2.      RRH is operating with very small case management teams. We may be early in identifying problems with Rapid ReHousing success long term.

3.      Jen brought this up at the last statewide RRH committee.  CHR’s staff did an internal survey with folks who discharged in the last few years.  We have a really high unsuccessful rate, but it isn’t reflected in any data, because although folks are losing housing they aren't returning to homelessness.   

4.      Somewhere the statewide data on RRH was showing incredible success rates, but it's often impossible for programs to gauge success after the end of assistance.

                                                   x.     Another issue we need to recognize was we were screening for who would be more successful.   Now we’re taking folks who are extremely vulnerable, but haven’t changed the way we operate RRH.  The program cannot function serving a consistently more complex population.

1.      Some of these discussions are happening at the RRH workgroup.  There’s a shift in what’s happening today compared to the original intent of rolling out RRH.  This needs to be considered when we’re talking about outcomes. 

2.      We will hold this as an ongoing agenda item. 

b.     Payment Delays to Landlords-

                                                    i.    DMHAS has had some significant delays in paying landlords, but Crane reminded everyone that the landlord cannot require a tenant to pay the program's portion of the rent.

                                                   ii.     If a client freaks out and calls you, remind them to call their housing coordinator to call their housing program and leave a message.  And give the program some time to get back.  A landlord cannot evict them based on DHMAS nonpayment.  

6.      Shelter Curfew Consistency – Fred Faulkner

a.      What has come up at the Learning Collaborative, we’re talking about having a consistent curfew time.  We need to back it up and ask whether there should be a curfew at all. 

b.      At SAMH we still have a curfew, but stopped enforcing.

c.      YWCA has done the same thing.

d.      Does that make a negative impact on No-Freeze?

e.      Lou mentioned that the reason they stopped enforcing curfew is because there's no good having a rule that can't truly be enforced  Once people know that, either staff are lying to clients (not good), or let’s not have it.   It caused some operational issues with our food groups, but we’re not here to serve the food groups, we’re here to serve clients.

f.      Our case manager said we won't discharge unless there's a threat to safety of other clients or staff.  Then clients started going off on our intake staff.  SAMH has taken away all rules not related to safety in the building.

h.      Iris said that because of their federal funding they can’t have a curfew.  If you don’t return past midnight, you lose your space.  It’s an expected time of arrival, to get around curfew, although it operates like a curfew.

i.       In The Open Hearth, they’ve done the same thing, because we’re worried about leaving folks out in the cold. Open Hearth wants to ensure that if folks aren't presenting for their bed, that they can offer it to someone else seeking shelter.

j.       Would people be comfortable saying if you don’t show within 24 hours.

k.      ImmaCare and Salvation Army have the same policy, that if clients don't present for two nights in a row, it's considered a self-discharge.

l.       At TOH, if staff are hearing from folks, they won’t give away the bed.  Let’s put this as a placeholder.  We will hold this as an agenda item for ongoing discussion.

7.      GH CAN Shelter and Housing Data – Mollie Greenwood

                                                    i.     There have been issues pulling a By Name List the past few days, so this information is not currently available.

8.      Over Income Clients – we have someone who is on the BNL – over income.  Crane put an email out to Kara.  This is an anomaly that we need a policy on.  Crane will keep everyone posted. 

                                        

9.      Future Agenda Items?

a.      Our first meeting in July is scheduled for July 4^th, which many organizations have off.  If there are some critical items, we may set up a separate meeting. 

10.   Announcements

a.      Tomorrow CCEH is hosting their Annual Training Institute at the CT Convention Center

b.      There will be a full SPDAT training offered by CCEH on June 6^th, location TBD.  Register on www.cceh.org.  This training is recommended for anyone who has never been trained in the full SPDAT, or for staff who have not administered a full SPDAT assessment in over a year.  Lunch will be provided for trainees.

c.      Journey Home is in the process of upgrading SmartSheets to be HIPAA compliant.  Be on the lookout for updated enduser agreements as we make these changes.  There will not be immediate changes to the user interface. 

                                                    i.     Need to keep things moving, but this is a collaborative.  You have authority for your own programs, and so it's important that if CT DOH or the City have a mandate that they are communicating that to grantees, rather than through Journey Home or other intermediary organizations.

                                                                                      

d.      Make sure you get onto the CT BOS email list!
e.    At a future meeting we need to discuss the cleanup of the family waiting list, and ensure that folks who are doubled-up safe are no longer being added to the family waiting list.

SmartSheet Shelter Priority List Data

Individual Men	Individual Women	Families
136 Unsheltered or in Cold Weather Placement	85 Unsheltered or in Cold Weather Placement	30 Unsheltered or in Cold Weather Placement
204 Total	135 Total	62 Total